Reasons behind levels and XP.

delete5230

Many people tend to equate level for a status symbol or allow the player to move on to the next zone.  I often get mad when F2P games give XP boost if you pay or add a daily gift to keep the player playing.  After all the more you play the better the chances of spending money. 

Shallow games are built for simply this reason, so it's understandable the player would be using it for a status reasons……. So many games had lost their way, therefore the player lost his way.  Don't feel bad its by design.

BUT, A quality game had a much much deeper equation.  Game changers !..... this-I-must-earn.  It can be a healer can ressurect at level 10 or a rouge can 100% stealth at level 20.  Infact way better examples, can be given to keep the heart pumping. 

Call it grind, but a game has to be LARGE and LONG between levels….. You got to want it !..... It's the reason the player being level 19 would play all night to really want 20 so they can change their game around  even if it takes a long time to get their (hours).  Then you can go to bed with a smile on your face.  were gamers, it's what we want like a normal person getting a new car. 

An "artist" can make a game exciting by careful level design.  It can keep a game intriguing for 6 or more months.  Then re roll and start all over and get years.

Pantheon…… People are expecting "artist"….. It's been well over ten years since we had "artist".

 

A "programmer" can make level design as a status rank…. This makes a game shallow.

Po_gg

Man, it's like a haystack... hard to grasp what's even the aim of the thread.

Levelgating content is bad. Give the freedom to go anywhere - if you'll be ripped apart, you'll learn to be more careful.

Xp boosts, advanced levels, jumpstart to levelcap options, etc. are indeed harmful to the game on the long run (say so myself a lot), but started with the subscription era. Are you only mad when an f2p game offers it?

Stay on level for longer periods: just suggested to you the xp disabler in the other thread...

Random skills at random levels (lowbie res or sneak in your examples), we did it once in a tabletop session, it's less fun as it sounds originally. Of course it depends on the trade-off. Our version was a penalty-like system: all spells were available from level 1, but the further it was from the player's level, the higher the chance was to fail.

As for the title, which is fully unrelated to your post, the answer goes back to that time as well. Reason behind levels and xp, pen'n'paper rpg systems.

It was a well-working mechanic there, its bastardization started with weaker games but the landslide was Diablo. Mindless kill for xp for levelup for more kill, rinse and repeat.

(On a sidenote FoM had a really nice and unique xp mechanic... actually it had a lot of interesting and unique mechanics. It still pisses me off what a wasted opportunity that game was, and died multiple times only because its stupid devs couldn't let go the idea of "this HAS TO be a ffa pvp game")

cameltosis

Yeh, I'm with Po_gg on this one: delete, I have no bloody clue what you are talking about.

Are you trying to write a thread about what you think should be the purpose of xp and levels?

Are you just complaining about how they're used now?

Are you trying to explain the history of the concepts?

I get the feeling that all you're asking for is massively long grinds with epic rewards at the end, so that you can get a sense of "earning" something and then feel good about yourself. If so, I disagree with what you're asking for and I believe it would result in a shit game. Not that I like progression mechanics in existing MMORPGs either, just that your half-baked idea would not work out.

Amaranthar

delete5230 said:

Many people tend to equate level for a status symbol or allow the player to move on to the next zone.  I often get mad when F2P games give XP boost if you pay or add a daily gift to keep the player playing.  After all the more you play the better the chances of spending money. 

Shallow games are built for simply this reason, so it's understandable the player would be using it for a status reasons……. So many games had lost their way, therefore the player lost his way.  Don't feel bad its by design.

BUT, A quality game had a much much deeper equation.  Game changers !..... this-I-must-earn.  It can be a healer can ressurect at level 10 or a rouge can 100% stealth at level 20.  Infact way better examples, can be given to keep the heart pumping. 

Call it grind, but a game has to be LARGE and LONG between levels….. You got to want it !..... It's the reason the player being level 19 would play all night to really want 20 so they can change their game around  even if it takes a long time to get their (hours).  Then you can go to bed with a smile on your face.  were gamers, it's what we want like a normal person getting a new car. 

An "artist" can make a game exciting by careful level design.  It can keep a game intriguing for 6 or more months.  Then re roll and start all over and get years.

Pantheon…… People are expecting "artist"….. It's been well over ten years since we had "artist".

 

A "programmer" can make level design as a status rank…. This makes a game shallow.

This is an explanation about how removing "easy" from these games can benefit them, isn't it?

But you can only make a game so hard. After that, you have to add extra content to be consumed. 
Content production of this sort, "quests", has always been a problem. 
Player consume it far faster than it can be produced. 

The only option is to add different kinds of content to consume and spend time on. 
Sandbox elements. 

But there's another problem here.
Sandbox elements don't work well with Themepark designs because of the huge Power Gaps and Reward "advancements." 

It's better to go with a Sandbox game, entirely. 
Just make sure that the advancements are sufficient to feel like it's rewarding enough. 
And this isn't as hard as people might think. 

You see:
In a Themepark game you double your power and rewards every so many levels. You can see this and feel it when you play. 
In a Sandbox game, and this can very widely, but you double your power and rewards much slower. 
But you still see and feel those affects as you play. 
So really, it's not any different. 

Except that you don't feel like a god. Only a great hero.  
And it's visible in game play, to you and everyone else. 
And it makes for a much better game, because now you can add all those Sandbox Elements into your game at their full capabilities of being "rewarding" to play. 

Po_gg

Amaranthar said:

Content production of this sort, "quests", has always been a problem. 
Player consume it far faster than it can be produced. 

There's an old (more than a decade) solution for that, player-made content. And I ain't talking about community events, which are indeed really good and fun content themselves, especially roleplay-wise.

I'm talking about actual in-game content, namely the Foundry. (or with maiden name Architect)

Players have made amazing content within, some were on-par (or even better) than the official mission chains.

But then Cryptic's incompetence killed it off...

Amaranthar said:

You see:
In a Themepark game you double your power and rewards every so many levels.

That ain't a given, either. TSW was a themepark, yet the power gap between a starter character and one with all skills and abilities maxed was about 70% (less than a double, once. I had a post about it in a power gap thread years ago, just can't find it now).

Of course that's just the characters themselves, the gear made a much wider gap (multiple times, compared a newbie 0 gear), but players could equip the highest gear kinda early on...

My point is, with the emphasis on horizontal progression, acquiring new and different ways (with the same power) you can keep the power gap fairly narrow even in a themepark game.

Amaranthar

Po_gg said:

Amaranthar said:

Content production of this sort, "quests", has always been a problem. 
Player consume it far faster than it can be produced. 

There's an old (more than a decade) solution for that, player-made content. And I ain't talking about community events, which are indeed really good and fun content themselves, especially roleplay-wise.

I'm talking about actual in-game content, namely the Foundry. (or with maiden name Architect)

Players have made amazing content within, some were on-par (or even better) than the official mission chains.

But then Cryptic's incompetence killed it off...

Amaranthar said:

You see:
In a Themepark game you double your power and rewards every so many levels.

That ain't a given, either. TSW was a themepark, yet the power gap between a starter character and one with all skills and abilities maxed was about 70% (less than a double, once. I had a post about it in a power gap thread years ago, just can't find it now).

Of course that's just the characters themselves, the gear made a much wider gap (multiple times, compared a newbie 0 gear), but players could equip the highest gear kinda early on...

My point is, with the emphasis on horizontal progression, acquiring new and different ways (with the same power) you can keep the power gap fairly narrow even in a themepark game.

I don't know about allowing players to create new world content like that. 
My biggest concerns are what they do to the game world (ruining the game's desired world design, overcrowding), and especially abuse possibilities. 
The devil's in the details on that one.

TSW sounds like it was Sandbox in all but the world design. As in Themepark like zones. It's definitely an outlier as far as MMORPGs go. Along with Eve Online. Different to the point that we really can't compare them to the typical games. 

Po_gg

TSW really was different, one of the reasons of its demise... which is a shame, since that made TSW so unique and great. Could be a tie-in to the other thread about easy-mode and different difficulties: a lot of people simply couldn't "get" TSW.

You should've seen the always returning complaints about "just got a new ability and it has the same damage as my starter one, such bullshit!" Was kinda amusing how little the understand about the synergies and sub types, etc.

As for the Foundry, yep, it wasn't free of exploits and abuse.

It was managed well though, even if it meant towards the end Foundry had no meaningful drops at all.

Which was overall a good thing, with the exploits were gone, and the reason for more exploits with them too, the "real" content (story, design, etc.) had more weight within the Foundry.

A nice summary on Neverwinter's Foundry (STO's had similar issues, but with a lot more lore-apropriate missions within), with interesting video snippets from the past, there's even Rob from mmorpg.com's past (he had a Foundry review series here)
https://youtu.be/t39RMjDOvRI

You can see a lot of different exploits presented there.

The story mission Silv3ry covered (at about 4 minutes) was really a fan favourite, turning against your annoying group

Kyleran

Amaranthar said:

delete5230 said:

Many people tend to equate level for a status symbol or allow the player to move on to the next zone.  I often get mad when F2P games give XP boost if you pay or add a daily gift to keep the player playing.  After all the more you play the better the chances of spending money. 

Shallow games are built for simply this reason, so it's understandable the player would be using it for a status reasons……. So many games had lost their way, therefore the player lost his way.  Don't feel bad its by design.

BUT, A quality game had a much much deeper equation.  Game changers !..... this-I-must-earn.  It can be a healer can ressurect at level 10 or a rouge can 100% stealth at level 20.  Infact way better examples, can be given to keep the heart pumping. 

Call it grind, but a game has to be LARGE and LONG between levels….. You got to want it !..... It's the reason the player being level 19 would play all night to really want 20 so they can change their game around  even if it takes a long time to get their (hours).  Then you can go to bed with a smile on your face.  were gamers, it's what we want like a normal person getting a new car. 

An "artist" can make a game exciting by careful level design.  It can keep a game intriguing for 6 or more months.  Then re roll and start all over and get years.

Pantheon…… People are expecting "artist"….. It's been well over ten years since we had "artist".

 

A "programmer" can make level design as a status rank…. This makes a game shallow.

This is an explanation about how removing "easy" from these games can benefit them, isn't it?

But you can only make a game so hard. After that, you have to add extra content to be consumed. 
Content production of this sort, "quests", has always been a problem. 
Player consume it far faster than it can be produced. 

The only option is to add different kinds of content to consume and spend time on. 
Sandbox elements. 

But there's another problem here.
Sandbox elements don't work well with Themepark designs because of the huge Power Gaps and Reward "advancements." 

It's better to go with a Sandbox game, entirely. 
Just make sure that the advancements are sufficient to feel like it's rewarding enough. 
And this isn't as hard as people might think. 

You see:
In a Themepark game you double your power and rewards every so many levels. You can see this and feel it when you play. 
In a Sandbox game, and this can very widely, but you double your power and rewards much slower. 
But you still see and feel those affects as you play. 
So really, it's not any different. 

Except that you don't feel like a god. Only a great hero.  
And it's visible in game play, to you and everyone else. 
And it makes for a much better game, because now you can add all those Sandbox Elements into your game at their full capabilities of being "rewarding" to play. 

Just curious,  which commercially successful "sandbox" style game is designed like this?  

Or were you speaking hypothetically?

Scorchien

                          Where do babies come from?

delete5230

Scorchien said:

                          Where do babies come from?

Yo mamma 

lahnmir

I want a goat. I want a goat that eats bananas so I can make chocolate. I like chocolate, it makes the air smell purple. And barbed wire, I like that too, they sound like my favorite triangles.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir 

delete5230

lahnmir said:

I want a goat. I want a goat that eats bananas so I can make chocolate. I like chocolate, it makes the air smell purple. And barbed wire, I like that too, they sound like my favorite triangles.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir 

I notice you always do this when I make a twisted up post

Lol

lahnmir

delete5230 said:

lahnmir said:

I want a goat. I want a goat that eats bananas so I can make chocolate. I like chocolate, it makes the air smell purple. And barbed wire, I like that too, they sound like my favorite triangles.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir 

I notice you always do this when I make a twisted up post

Lol

I am trying to get inside your head but always end up with posts like these 

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Scorchien

delete5230 said:

Scorchien said:

                          Where do babies come from?

Yo mamma 

For most here , yes .. For others im certain an Egg...

Amaranthar

Kyleran said:

Amaranthar said:

delete5230 said:

Many people tend to equate level for a status symbol or allow the player to move on to the next zone.  I often get mad when F2P games give XP boost if you pay or add a daily gift to keep the player playing.  After all the more you play the better the chances of spending money. 

Shallow games are built for simply this reason, so it's understandable the player would be using it for a status reasons……. So many games had lost their way, therefore the player lost his way.  Don't feel bad its by design.

BUT, A quality game had a much much deeper equation.  Game changers !..... this-I-must-earn.  It can be a healer can ressurect at level 10 or a rouge can 100% stealth at level 20.  Infact way better examples, can be given to keep the heart pumping. 

Call it grind, but a game has to be LARGE and LONG between levels….. You got to want it !..... It's the reason the player being level 19 would play all night to really want 20 so they can change their game around  even if it takes a long time to get their (hours).  Then you can go to bed with a smile on your face.  were gamers, it's what we want like a normal person getting a new car. 

An "artist" can make a game exciting by careful level design.  It can keep a game intriguing for 6 or more months.  Then re roll and start all over and get years.

Pantheon…… People are expecting "artist"….. It's been well over ten years since we had "artist".

 

A "programmer" can make level design as a status rank…. This makes a game shallow.

This is an explanation about how removing "easy" from these games can benefit them, isn't it?

But you can only make a game so hard. After that, you have to add extra content to be consumed. 
Content production of this sort, "quests", has always been a problem. 
Player consume it far faster than it can be produced. 

The only option is to add different kinds of content to consume and spend time on. 
Sandbox elements. 

But there's another problem here.
Sandbox elements don't work well with Themepark designs because of the huge Power Gaps and Reward "advancements." 

It's better to go with a Sandbox game, entirely. 
Just make sure that the advancements are sufficient to feel like it's rewarding enough. 
And this isn't as hard as people might think. 

You see:
In a Themepark game you double your power and rewards every so many levels. You can see this and feel it when you play. 
In a Sandbox game, and this can very widely, but you double your power and rewards much slower. 
But you still see and feel those affects as you play. 
So really, it's not any different. 

Except that you don't feel like a god. Only a great hero.  
And it's visible in game play, to you and everyone else. 
And it makes for a much better game, because now you can add all those Sandbox Elements into your game at their full capabilities of being "rewarding" to play. 

Just curious,  which commercially successful "sandbox" style game is designed like this?  

Or were you speaking hypothetically?

The only hypothetical part of it is to make the assumption that it would NOT have rampant PKing to drive players away. 

UO had the PKing and lost, according to Raph Koster (I don't have a link but he's said it several times), players specifically because of the PKing, in the 6 digits. (100,000 or more)

According to Richard Garriott, UO sold a million Unique Accounts. 
Link is second hand but sounds reliable to me.
http://www.hot-guild.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=31974

And my experience with many, many players (partly because UO was so successful as a Social game), as well as postings on forums, people loved UO and it's design, except for the rampant PKing. 

Now, if you're going to tell me that just because something hasn't been done, in lieu of what's stagnating now, then save your breath. 
I subscribe to the thinking of the Wright Bros., Henry Ford, Einstein, Bell, etc., etc., etc., (and not that I'm like any of them) that just because "it" hasn't been done successfully doesn't mean it can't be done successfully. 

Now I know that you absolutely love your Themepark games, from all you've said. And I know there are still plenty of other gamers just like you, too.

That's fine, but there are obviously a great many gamers who are tired of this retread boredom and are looking for something that works as an MMORPG, and not just a SP game experience. 

Judge for yourself, as I do. 

Amathe

Can I buy a vowel?

Kyleran

Amaranthar said:

Kyleran said:

Amaranthar said:

delete5230 said:

Many people tend to equate level for a status symbol or allow the player to move on to the next zone.  I often get mad when F2P games give XP boost if you pay or add a daily gift to keep the player playing.  After all the more you play the better the chances of spending money. 

Shallow games are built for simply this reason, so it's understandable the player would be using it for a status reasons……. So many games had lost their way, therefore the player lost his way.  Don't feel bad its by design.

BUT, A quality game had a much much deeper equation.  Game changers !..... this-I-must-earn.  It can be a healer can ressurect at level 10 or a rouge can 100% stealth at level 20.  Infact way better examples, can be given to keep the heart pumping. 

Call it grind, but a game has to be LARGE and LONG between levels….. You got to want it !..... It's the reason the player being level 19 would play all night to really want 20 so they can change their game around  even if it takes a long time to get their (hours).  Then you can go to bed with a smile on your face.  were gamers, it's what we want like a normal person getting a new car. 

An "artist" can make a game exciting by careful level design.  It can keep a game intriguing for 6 or more months.  Then re roll and start all over and get years.

Pantheon…… People are expecting "artist"….. It's been well over ten years since we had "artist".

 

A "programmer" can make level design as a status rank…. This makes a game shallow.

This is an explanation about how removing "easy" from these games can benefit them, isn't it?

But you can only make a game so hard. After that, you have to add extra content to be consumed. 
Content production of this sort, "quests", has always been a problem. 
Player consume it far faster than it can be produced. 

The only option is to add different kinds of content to consume and spend time on. 
Sandbox elements. 

But there's another problem here.
Sandbox elements don't work well with Themepark designs because of the huge Power Gaps and Reward "advancements." 

It's better to go with a Sandbox game, entirely. 
Just make sure that the advancements are sufficient to feel like it's rewarding enough. 
And this isn't as hard as people might think. 

You see:
In a Themepark game you double your power and rewards every so many levels. You can see this and feel it when you play. 
In a Sandbox game, and this can very widely, but you double your power and rewards much slower. 
But you still see and feel those affects as you play. 
So really, it's not any different. 

Except that you don't feel like a god. Only a great hero.  
And it's visible in game play, to you and everyone else. 
And it makes for a much better game, because now you can add all those Sandbox Elements into your game at their full capabilities of being "rewarding" to play. 

Just curious,  which commercially successful "sandbox" style game is designed like this?  

Or were you speaking hypothetically?

The only hypothetical part of it is to make the assumption that it would NOT have rampant PKing to drive players away. 

UO had the PKing and lost, according to Raph Koster (I don't have a link but he's said it several times), players specifically because of the PKing, in the 6 digits. (100,000 or more)

According to Richard Garriott, UO sold a million Unique Accounts. 
Link is second hand but sounds reliable to me.
http://www.hot-guild.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=31974

And my experience with many, many players (partly because UO was so successful as a Social game), as well as postings on forums, people loved UO and it's design, except for the rampant PKing. 

Now, if you're going to tell me that just because something hasn't been done, in lieu of what's stagnating now, then save your breath. 
I subscribe to the thinking of the Wright Bros., Henry Ford, Einstein, Bell, etc., etc., etc., (and not that I'm like any of them) that just because "it" hasn't been done successfully doesn't mean it can't be done successfully. 

Now I know that you absolutely love your Themepark games, from all you've said. And I know there are still plenty of other gamers just like you, too.

That's fine, but there are obviously a great many gamers who are tired of this retread boredom and are looking for something that works as an MMORPG, and not just a SP game experience. 

Judge for yourself, as I do. 

So your speaking mostly from a theoretical standpoint,  except for an early MMORPG which basically got WTF stomped by EQ1 and some others for "reasons."

Twice now you've "accused" me of loving themeparks but I'm thinking you've confused me with someone else.

I cut my teeth on Lineage 1, DAOC (much of my time on Mordred, FFA server) Shadowbane, Lineage 2, none considered sandboxes but hardly considered themeparks as established by what I consider to be one of the first, WOW.

I enjoyed WOW for a time, until I realized its endgame of endless gear grinding held no appeal,  and it became clear they were never going the wide open, FFA route.

Spent over 10 years playing EVE, my only sandbox style game, though many argue it isn't one, but was close enough for me.

Haven't enjoyed a themepark besides WOW during the Vanilla years, leaving before BC released, and finding most who came afterwards just more of the same and wanting.

Did enjoy alpha release of ArcheAge, but Trion fouled that all up once it launched.

Havent paid for a proper MMORPG since leaving EVE over 3 years ago, though did dable a bit with a DAOC free shard or two.

Ungood

Level Grinds serve only one purpose, to give players time to learn the game. After that, they suck, and suck even more for people who play alts.

Amaranthar

Kyleran said:

Amaranthar said:

Kyleran said:

Amaranthar said:

delete5230 said:

Many people tend to equate level for a status symbol or allow the player to move on to the next zone.  I often get mad when F2P games give XP boost if you pay or add a daily gift to keep the player playing.  After all the more you play the better the chances of spending money. 

Shallow games are built for simply this reason, so it's understandable the player would be using it for a status reasons……. So many games had lost their way, therefore the player lost his way.  Don't feel bad its by design.

BUT, A quality game had a much much deeper equation.  Game changers !..... this-I-must-earn.  It can be a healer can ressurect at level 10 or a rouge can 100% stealth at level 20.  Infact way better examples, can be given to keep the heart pumping. 

Call it grind, but a game has to be LARGE and LONG between levels….. You got to want it !..... It's the reason the player being level 19 would play all night to really want 20 so they can change their game around  even if it takes a long time to get their (hours).  Then you can go to bed with a smile on your face.  were gamers, it's what we want like a normal person getting a new car. 

An "artist" can make a game exciting by careful level design.  It can keep a game intriguing for 6 or more months.  Then re roll and start all over and get years.

Pantheon…… People are expecting "artist"….. It's been well over ten years since we had "artist".

 

A "programmer" can make level design as a status rank…. This makes a game shallow.

This is an explanation about how removing "easy" from these games can benefit them, isn't it?

But you can only make a game so hard. After that, you have to add extra content to be consumed. 
Content production of this sort, "quests", has always been a problem. 
Player consume it far faster than it can be produced. 

The only option is to add different kinds of content to consume and spend time on. 
Sandbox elements. 

But there's another problem here.
Sandbox elements don't work well with Themepark designs because of the huge Power Gaps and Reward "advancements." 

It's better to go with a Sandbox game, entirely. 
Just make sure that the advancements are sufficient to feel like it's rewarding enough. 
And this isn't as hard as people might think. 

You see:
In a Themepark game you double your power and rewards every so many levels. You can see this and feel it when you play. 
In a Sandbox game, and this can very widely, but you double your power and rewards much slower. 
But you still see and feel those affects as you play. 
So really, it's not any different. 

Except that you don't feel like a god. Only a great hero.  
And it's visible in game play, to you and everyone else. 
And it makes for a much better game, because now you can add all those Sandbox Elements into your game at their full capabilities of being "rewarding" to play. 

Just curious,  which commercially successful "sandbox" style game is designed like this?  

Or were you speaking hypothetically?

The only hypothetical part of it is to make the assumption that it would NOT have rampant PKing to drive players away. 

UO had the PKing and lost, according to Raph Koster (I don't have a link but he's said it several times), players specifically because of the PKing, in the 6 digits. (100,000 or more)

According to Richard Garriott, UO sold a million Unique Accounts. 
Link is second hand but sounds reliable to me.
http://www.hot-guild.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=31974

And my experience with many, many players (partly because UO was so successful as a Social game), as well as postings on forums, people loved UO and it's design, except for the rampant PKing. 

Now, if you're going to tell me that just because something hasn't been done, in lieu of what's stagnating now, then save your breath. 
I subscribe to the thinking of the Wright Bros., Henry Ford, Einstein, Bell, etc., etc., etc., (and not that I'm like any of them) that just because "it" hasn't been done successfully doesn't mean it can't be done successfully. 

Now I know that you absolutely love your Themepark games, from all you've said. And I know there are still plenty of other gamers just like you, too.

That's fine, but there are obviously a great many gamers who are tired of this retread boredom and are looking for something that works as an MMORPG, and not just a SP game experience. 

Judge for yourself, as I do. 

So your speaking mostly from a theoretical standpoint,  except for an early MMORPG which basically got WTF stomped by EQ1 and some others for "reasons."

Twice now you've "accused" me of loving themeparks but I'm thinking you've confused me with someone else.

I cut my teeth on Lineage 1, DAOC (much of my time on Mordred, FFA server) Shadowbane, Lineage 2, none considered sandboxes but hardly considered themeparks as established by what I consider to be one of the first, WOW.

I enjoyed WOW for a time, until I realized its endgame of endless gear grinding held no appeal,  and it became clear they were never going the wide open, FFA route.

Spent over 10 years playing EVE, my only sandbox style game, though many argue it isn't one, but was close enough for me.

Haven't enjoyed a themepark besides WOW during the Vanilla years, leaving before BC released, and finding most who came afterwards just more of the same and wanting.

Did enjoy alpha release of ArcheAge, but Trion fouled that all up once it launched.

Havent paid for a proper MMORPG since leaving EVE over 3 years ago, though did dable a bit with a DAOC free shard or two.

Whatever you say. 
All I can go by is your posts. And you seem to have a strong liking for the big Power Gaps that are the hallmark of Themeparks. And in fact, are the cause of why Themeparks are what they are.
And you seem to challenge any claims that other players might like the Sandbox, lower Power Gap, designs. 

Just like now.